fbpx

August 21, 2019

The Truth About Israel and the Democrats

In the past week, I found myself in a minority. Well, I can’t be certain that this was really a minority, because that depends on the question of a minority among whom — Israelis? Columnists? Experts? No matter, for a few days, it surely felt like a minority. News organizations, including the Journal, published articles denouncing Israel for not letting two U.S. congresswomen enter the country. And I thought: Way to go, Israel. 

Of course, being on the receiving end of denunciation is never pleasant. And yet, Israel made the right, if belated, choice. It should have said at the outset that Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) are not welcome. It should have presented at the outset the Democratic Party with a dilemma: Do you support Omar and Tlaib — or Israel? 

To me, this seems like an easy one, but in today’s world, and today’s America, maybe it’s not. Israel has a problem with the Democratic Party. This is not a new problem. Party voters are moving left. The move to the left is manifested in many ways, including less support for Israel. Obviously, an incident like the one with Omar and Tlaib will make it easier for the party’s left-wing to hammer Israel a little more, putting its centrist wing in a defensive position. Obviously, the incident will further erode Israel’s ability to communicate with voters, and perhaps with some elected officials, in the Democratic Party. 

On the other hand, there should be no illusion: Had the visit taken place, it would not necessarily improve Israel’s situation. Omar and Tlaib are a cunning duo, and their visit’s aim was to further erode support for Israel. It’s not inconceivable to imagine scenarios that would make the visit even more harmful than the ban.

“Democratic Party leaders can’t argue that Israel alone is responsible for souring the U.S.-Israel relationship.”

Why is the Democratic Party upset with Israel? It is customary to blame Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for recent erosion in the party’s stance. And indeed, he bears some of the blame. But the attempts to claim that he is the sole culprit are ridiculous. When Ehud Olmert was Israel’s prime minister — the Olmert of concessions and peace negotiations — the Democrats also weren’t always happy. You know why? Because of his close relationship with a Republican president. Here is an April 2007 quote from veteran reporter Nathan Gutman: “Democrats are still angry about what they see as Olmert’s desperate attempts to align himself with President [George W.] Bush even if it means wading into American political controversies.” Sound familiar? It is familiar. Democratic leaders are never happy when an Israeli prime minister befriends a Republican president. 

One of Netanyahu’s problems is the optics of what he does. For eight years, he had adversarial relations with a Democratic president. So Democratic voters must think: Gee, this guy only gets along with Republicans. But the truth is much more boring. Netanyahu had little choice but to oppose President Barack Obama. He opposed him for the same reason former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon, not quite a Netanyahu ally, called Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, “messianic and obsessive.” He opposed him for the same reason Israeli President Reuven Rivlin, not a great Netanyahu supporter, worried that “in the past, the United States has seen Israel as a strategic asset in the Middle East beyond moral commitment. It is currently unclear what the White House’s position is.” 

Enter Trump. A president who moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and recognized Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights. Obviously, there is a considerable gap between Israel’s cool attitude toward Obama and the warm and sympathetic attitude toward Trump. This is not because one is a Republican and one is a Democrat, but because Israel prefers sympathetic presidents.

The ban on Omar and Tlaib does not have to damage Israel’s relations with the Democratic Party. In fact, what happens next is for Democratic leaders to decide. They can choose to understand that Israel made a reasonable choice. They can choose to disagree with Israel and move on. They also can choose to further damage the relationship. What they can’t do is argue that Israel alone is responsible for souring the relationship.


Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.

The Truth About Israel and the Democrats Read More »

The Transplant From Zimbabwe Who Made Israel His Home

Tristan Sauter was still a teenager when he moved to Israel. As a non-Jew, it was an unlikely place for a white man raised in Zimbabwe and Malawi to end up. Israel was, Sauter said, “one huge culture shock.” 

However, he decided to move to Israel with his Jewish boyfriend (now husband), Jonathan, whom he met in South Africa. Today, the couple runs a hair salon popular with Tel Aviv’s English-speaking community.

But things weren’t always so easy. Shortly after arriving in Israel, Sauter found himself at a packed bus stop. He allowed all the women and elderly to get on the bus before him, only to have the bus driver screech off at full speed, leaving him standing on the curb.

However, despite that humiliation, Israel was also the first place where Sauter could live publicly as a gay man, even though he describes himself as conservative and uncomfortable with public displays of affection. He attributes this to the fact that homosexuality is illegal in Zimbabwe and Malawi. 

Sauter was born in Zimbabwe in 1981, amid major unrest. The threat of another civil war loomed as guerrilla groups launched rebellions. Fearing for its safety, Sauter’s family moved to Blantyre, Malawi, when Sauter was 2 years old. Although the school he attended had black and white students, he said he always was aware of his “white privilege.” “It’s just easier as a white person,” he said, noting that he has royal blood. His paternal grandfather was Swiss and he shares an aunt with Princess Charlene of Monaco, a fellow Zimbabwean.

 “I felt so much safer [in Israel] than I ever did in Africa.” — Tristan Sauter 

Sauter described life in Blantyre as “peaceful and chilled” but laced with a “colonial air,” and he never felt safe there. When he was 14, he woke in the night to banging at his window. He saw a dark face and screamed to his mother, who came running in with a gun. She asked the man what the hell he thought he was doing. Sauter laughed as he recalls the intruder’s response. “He said, ‘I’m trying to break in, ma’am.’ ” On another occasion, 18 people tried to break into the house at the same time. “I never slept,” Sauter said. “I was always paranoid. I felt so much safer [in Israel] than I ever did in Africa.” 

He did, however, arrive in Israel at the beginning of the Second Intifada, when there was a slew of café and bus bombings. He said he recalls jumping off so many buses “because I couldn’t tell the difference between Israelis and terrorists.” 

Shortly after arriving, he started working for a celebrity hairdresser in Tel Aviv. One day, he received a call to not come in. His boss had fled the country because the mafia was after him. Sauter then joined Jonathan at his salon and has worked there ever since.

After almost two decades, Sauter finally received Israeli citizenship three months ago.  Still, he said, “I’m not Israeli enough.”

But Israel is definitely his home. The last time he was in Malawi was three years ago, to visit his brother who was gravely ill with tetanus. Thankfully, his brother survived, but the visit gave Sauter pause for thought.

“I often have that feeling about why am I so far from my family,” he said. “But I could never go back to living life in Africa. It’s a very laid-back lifestyle, which is great, but the future is bleak there.”

The Transplant From Zimbabwe Who Made Israel His Home Read More »

Choosing Life: The Jewish Secret to Survival

My mother, a clinical social worker in the Baltimore public school system, swears by the book “The Choice” by Edith Eva Eger. Eger survived the Holocaust, while her parents were sent to the gas chambers at Auschwitz. It’s her spirit of embracing the possible that makes Eger’s post-Holocaust psychology stand out. “We can choose what the horror teaches us,” Eger reminds us. “To become bitter in our grief and fear. Hostile. Paralyzed. Or to hold on to the childlike part of us, the lively and the curious part, the part that is innocent.”

No matter our struggles, challenges, insecurities or pain, we have the power of choice. The question is, what do we choose? 

“Choose life.” A few days after Dvir Sorek, an 18-year-old yeshiva student and soldier, was killed by Palestinian terrorists, I kept repeating his father Yoav’s eulogy in which he implored everyone to “choose life.”

How could he speak so positively after this tragedy? Eikhah, how?

After reading Eikhah on a Saturday night, I realized perhaps the better question than “how” is: What does this sort of response tell us about Zionism and the Jewish people, especially in light of Tisha b’Av?

Zionism as a Tikkun

Tradition tells us that on the ninth of Av, we lost the Beit HaMikdash, the Temple, because of the sin of spies who, upon return from the Land of Israel, spoke about the land in an unbecoming way. Yet, the sin of the spies seems quite vague and the punishment so severe. God tells Moshe to take the best and the bravest, the outstanding leaders of the Jewish people to scout the land. These aristocrats do just that, and they come back with their objective assessment of what’s taking place. They cite the good (i.e. land flowing with milk and honey), then the bad (i.e. there were giants and a lot of other nations). Their description was accurate. It was honest. And that was the problem. Their objective assessment of the Land of Israel was not good enough.

Consider the early Zionists as foils to the spies. Unlike the spies, these young men and women, often orphans and penniless, were anything but aristocratic. When they arrived in the Land of Israel (then called Palestine) from Europe, they might have seen the marshes, the disease, the swamps, the local Arab inhabitants and said, “Nope. This isn’t for us.” It would have been accurate. It would have been honest. It would have been fair. Nobody would have blamed them for this objective assessment. But the early Zionists had what writer Ari Shavit calls “convenient blindness” and collectively banded together like the 12 spies should have and said, “We can do it. We can turn this land into our land. We can reclaim our heritage.”

Of course, seeing the Temple desolate was devastating. The rabbis’ objective assessment was accurate. It was realistic. It was fair. But Rabbi Akiva saw things through the lens of anchored optimism — not objective reality and not juvenile fantasy.

Essentially, they showed themselves to be the descendants of Kalev, who, in the face of adversity from the other spies, peer pressure and groupthink, asserted his own view and heroically declared, “Aloh naaleh, viyarashnu otah, ki yachol nuchal lah,” “We can do it! We can conquer the land!”

The job of a Jew is not to describe things as they are, but as they ought to be. We’re not just realists; we’re thoughtful and reflective optimists who, in the words of the late Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, choose optimism over pessimism because “optimists and pessimists die the exact same death, but they live very different lives.”

Rabbi Akiva and Optimism

One millennium after the story of the spies, the Talmud tells the story of Rabbi Akiva and his rabbinic colleagues traveling to Jerusalem. When they approached the Temple Mount, they saw foxes exiting the Holy of Holies. How did the rabbis respond? With tears. How did Rabbi Akiva react? By channeling his inner Kalev — with optimism and laughter.

“Eikhah, how?”

The rabbis asked Rabbi Akiva this very question, and his answer is a subtle hint into the psyche of the success of the Jewish experience from antiquity to today.

“Why do you laugh?” they asked.
“Why do you cry?” he replied

How can we not cry, they said, when we see foxes milling about a place of which it is written that “a stranger who draws near shall die?” To which, Rabbi Akiva replied, “This is precisely why I laugh. Uriah wrote, ‘Zion shall be plowed as a field.’ Zachariah wrote, ‘Old men and women shall yet sit in the streets of Jerusalem.’ So long as Uriah’s prophecy was not fulfilled, I worried that Zachariah’s prophecy might not be fulfilled. Now that Uriah’s prophecy was fulfilled, there is no question that Zachariah’s prophecy will also be fulfilled.”

Of course, seeing the Temple desolate was devastating. The rabbis’ objective assessment was accurate. It was realistic. It was fair. But Rabbi Akiva saw things through the lens of anchored optimism — not objective reality and not juvenile fantasy.

Russian author Leo Tolstoy asks, “What is the Jew? What kind of creature is this whom all the rulers of all the nations of the world have disgraced and crushed and expelled and destroyed; persecuted, burned and drowned, and who, despite their anger and their fury, continues to live and to flourish?”

I think we can begin to answer that question. From Kalev to Rabbi Akiva and from the early Zionists to Yoav Sorek, the Jewish people have shown the ability to see what others either cannot or choose not to, to live lives of anchored optimism and to “choose life” in the face of adversity and trauma.

On the heels of Tisha b’Av and during the shivah of Dvir Sorek, I echo the words of Yoav Sorek, who described his slain son as a young man with a “bright face, positive thought, innocence and love for humanity.” Let’s follow Yoav Sorek’s lesson to “choose life,” and let’s remind our young people to engage in the “positive thought and love for humanity” by which Dvir lived.


Noam Weissman is the senior vice president of education of Jerusalem U, a digital media company focused on Israel education and Jewish identity.

Choosing Life: The Jewish Secret to Survival Read More »

Lessons I’ve Learned From My Teacup Yorkie Terrier Glendi

“When God created the world, He invested in man the power to elevate the divine sparks or souls that are found throughout creation. It is for this reason that in general, the way an animal’s soul is elevated and returned after its death to its divine source is through its positive and spiritual interactions with man.” — Rabbi Yehuda Shurpin

It’s our responsibility to elevate our pets, although sometimes I think they elevate us. Like when I’m upset and my dog looks at me with that face that says, “Easy does it, pal. Go chase a ball. You’ll feel better.” 

My wife and I have a dog named Glendi. She’s about 12 or 13 years old. Glendi was a gift straight from God. My wife had been talking to me about getting a Teacup Yorkshire Terrier. She had two as a child and always wanted another. 

So, one evening 10 years ago, we were dropping off something on our friend’s doorstep on Glenville Drive. Running around was a filthy, ratty, cold and wet animal (our friends weren’t home). Our gift from God had been delivered. When I first saw this thing, I really wasn’t sure what it was. Whatever it was, it was a real mess.

My wife was in the car. I said, “Come quick.” She ran over and saw I was holding what turned out to be a 2 1/2-pound Teacup Yorkie that we eventually named Glendi, after the street we found her on. 

The next day we took Glendi to our vet. She wasn’t microchipped. We advertised and looked in newspapers and online. Nothing. The vet said she was in good health except for a slightly messed up back left leg and some bad teeth. I wish I got a report that good from my doctor. 

“Glendi turned out to be the sweetest, most loving and dumbest dog on the planet.” 

Glendi turned out to be the sweetest, most loving and dumbest dog on the planet. After 10 years, she still doesn’t understand the command “sit.” Now that I think about it, my boys also took about 10 years to learn to sit. So I guess it runs in the family. 

We once hired a dog trainer and, to quote him, “Glendi is not the brightest star in the sky.” Most dogs enjoy playing ball or running around. Not Glendi. She lies in bed and stares at us. She’s also a painfully slow walker. In fact, we don’t walk her; we take her out for a drag. She can sleep 18 hours a day and still be game for another nap. Adult Yorkies have 42 teeth. Glendi has six scattered about her mouth. We love her and she loves us. 

After 10 years of pretty robust health, Glendi got sick. Her kidneys might be failing. She was hospitalized for four days, and we visited her every day. It was like visiting any relative; we brought her brisket and chicken. The only thing we didn’t bring her was the daily newspaper. Her doctor said, “It’s wait and see.” We prayed she’d bounce back but if not, we vowed to  make sure she never has to suffer. 

I’ve learned a lot from her. I’ve learned it’s important to give a hearty hello when someone you love returns home; to snuggle next to someone you love; to eat your meals with gusto; to enjoy what you have and not to complain about what you don’t have. 

Years ago when we had to put down our first dog, Star, the vet asked me if I wanted to come into the room when he gave Star the injection. I didn’t go in. It seemed too painful to me. To this day, I regret not going in. I wish mine was the last face Star saw when she closed her eyes for the last time. 

If the day comes that we have to put Glendi to rest, I’m going in. I’ll be standing right there, petting her head, holding her paw, telling her not to be afraid, and that I love her until she draws her last breath. Then I’ll kiss her goodbye.

But the good news is that she’s OK today. So, until that day comes, as Moses said, “We choose life.”


Mark Schiff is a comedian, actor and writer.

Lessons I’ve Learned From My Teacup Yorkie Terrier Glendi Read More »

NYC Exhibit Marvels at ‘Mrs. Maisel’ Costumes and Set Pieces

When the first season of “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” dropped in March 2017, my TV viewing time was occupied by my then 7-year-old and, at first glance, the Amazon Prime show didn’t seem appropriate. When I inadvertently walked through a film shoot on Madison Avenue, my interest was piqued but no one here was really talking about it.

Then the second season was released last December, and that’s all everyone was talking about. When I would mention that I hadn’t yet had a chance to check it out, friends would literally stop in the middle of a street and shout: “OMG, you of all people must watch it.” So I finally did. In fact, for 48 hours, that’s all I did. And then I tried to get everyone I know to watch it. 

If the person wasn’t Jewish, I would say, “I’ll explain it to you — just look at the fabulous clothes.” But every time I made follow-up inquiries, they would say, “You don’t have to explain anything — the entire show is fabulous.”

The writers, Amy Sherman-Palladino and her husband, Daniel Palladino, have been able to brilliantly take the particulars of a Jewish family in 1950s New York City and make it universally appealing. So appealing that it recently received 20 Emmy nominations, more than any other comedy; so appealing that the Paley Center for Media in Manhattan created an exclusive exhibit called “Making Maisel Marvelous,” on view until Sept. 6.

When I arrived at the press preview, my first question was: Why did the Paley Center think that the show — though gorgeously shot mostly in New York, with beautifully crafted sets and costumes — had cultural significance? 

For Jews today, bogged down with deepening hate and violence, Midge is a composite of both who we are — strong, fiery and creative — and who we need to be.

“Every year, the Paley Center presents exhibits of work that offers a unique combination of artistry and entertainment,” said Teresa Brady, director of communications. “The show perfectly captures the drive of a woman ahead of her time, who wants to carve out a life beyond just being a mother and wife.”

The fact that the main character, Midge, had to deal with a difficult personal transition is part of why my friends were so emphatic that I had to see it. The other part is that clothes play an outsized role in the show as, yes, OK, they do in my life.

The Catskills set pieces and costumes from the Making Maisel Marvelous exhibit. 
Photo by: Marion Curtis / StarPix for The Paley Center
-Location:

After touring the lush, interactive sets — the hair salon from the Catskills, the booth from the Stage Deli, the B. Altman switchboard, the TV set from the Arthritis Telethon — I watched a montage of clips from the first two seasons. It occurred to me that Midge resonates for women not only because she is strong, brave and breaks boundaries, but because she does all of this with her femininity in tow; in fact, it often seems as though she gains strength from her femininity, from her coy sexuality.  

As I walked up Madison, past department stores that resemble the old B. Altman, I felt proud. Sure, we’ve had Jewish heroines on film and TV — “Funny Girl,” “Rhoda,” “The Nanny” — but notably not many. The show also honors Jewish treasures — Lenny Bruce, the Catskill resorts, lavish holiday dinners — while never forgetting that Jews worked their way up from lower East Side tenements to be able to have this life. 

The fact that it appeared at the onset of the worst anti-Semitism since World War II is rather breathtaking.

Or maybe that’s precisely why it resonates. The show — with Season 3 dropping on Dec. 6 — offers a gorgeous, funny escape from the dreariness of not just politics but our culture, where every act is seen as a political. Midge is bold and ambitious, but the writers knew better than to announce at every turn that she personified feminism. “We didn’t want it to feel political,” Sherman-Palladino said, “but rather relevant to young women today.”

As a result, they created a timeless, transcendent work of art: The now iconic Midge will resonate for girls all over the world, decades from now. 

As for Jews today, bogged down daily with deepening hate and violence, Midge is a composite of both who we are — strong, fiery and creative — and who we need to be.


Karen Lehrman Bloch is an author and cultural critic living in New York City.

NYC Exhibit Marvels at ‘Mrs. Maisel’ Costumes and Set Pieces Read More »

How My Recent Trip to NYC Brought Faux Bullets Over Broadway

So far, my annual pilgrimage to the Great White Way was going quite swimmingly. 

I already had marveled at the visual delights in the new stage version of “Moulin Rouge!: The Musical,” which was more over-the-top than the movie. I had been magically transported to Hogwarts in “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, Parts One and Two,” an all-day theatrical event that had me gasping in astonishment. And I had just seen this year’s Tony-winning musical “Hadestown,” a moving retelling of the Orpheus and Eurydice myth with a New Orleans twist.

But in Times Square on that evening of Tuesday, Aug. 6, I, along with my partner, Greg, and hundreds of tourists, were jolted out of the fantasyland of Broadway and into the reality of the world we now live in.

Greg and I had just exited the theater carrying our “Hadestown” programs. He had to run a shopping errand at the Gap, so we were heading that way as walked by the TKTS booth at Times Square. I remarked how amazing it was that there was such a huge crowd of families just hanging out on a weeknight at 10 o’clock. Because I was distracted by my people-watching, I was stunned when Greg suddenly grabbed me and yelled, “Run!”

It was like a dream — or a nightmare. Everywhere around us, people were in a panic, running and screaming. Some had fallen to the ground in the stampede. Many had abandoned their shoes and flip-flops as they fled from an assumed danger.

I had not heard gunshots, or really anything out of the ordinary, when the melee began. But when Greg said, “Run,” I ran. I wasn’t sure what we were running from — an active shooter, a bomb, a sniper from a high rise, a careening van — I just knew we had to get out of there. There were murmurs from the crowd about gunshots. I heard one man say there was a shooting at the M&M store. It’s interesting how quickly rumors spread.

I had not heard gunshots, or really anything out of the ordinary, when the melee began. But when Greg said, “Run,” I ran. I wasn’t sure what we were running from.

With the recent massacres in Gilroy, Calif.; El Paso, Texas; and Dayton, Ohio, so fresh on our collective consciousness, the movie playing in my mind went through all the worst-case scenarios. Were we about to be gunned down? Was this it? In survival mode, we tried to take shelter in the retail stores lining Broadway, but they were all locking their doors. I can appreciate emergency protocols, but in the horror of the moment, I couldn’t understand how they would turn away those seeking safety.

Ultimately, we ran about five blocks until we reached the 50th Street subway station and dived quickly underground. Who would’ve thought that a subway station, still sweltering and humid so late at night with all the accompanying smells one would expect of it, could feel like such a safe haven? 

When we got back to the apartment we were staying at on the Upper West Side, I closed the door behind us with a big sigh of relief. Then I checked Twitter to see if there was any news on the situation. Good news — it wasn’t a shooting. Apparently, a motorcycle in Times Square had backfired multiple times, causing the crowd to assume it was gunshots. I was glad there was not, in fact, an active shooter situation. But I was also saddened that this was the state of the world — that being on edge has become the new normal. 

If there is one positive thing I can take away from this experience, it’s that my partner is a mensch. When he grabbed me at the first sign of chaos, he held me tight with his body shielding mine from any potential bullets. He stayed in this position for as many blocks as we ran. In the “Hadestown” musical we had just seen, there is a lyric that goes “What you gonna do when the chips are down, now that the chips are down.” When the chips were down, Greg had my back. Literally. This is a guy who has anxiety attacks if his brunch order is wrong. Yet when it mattered, his true colors showed through. 

The terror I felt that night has already faded from memory. What has stayed with me, however, is a newfound appreciation for life. Love. And a good ol’ Broadway musical.


Jonathan Fong is the style director for the Journal.

How My Recent Trip to NYC Brought Faux Bullets Over Broadway Read More »

Poem: Oath of Disloyalty

I am a disloyal Jew.

I am not loyal to a political party.
Nor will I be loyal to dictators and mad kings.
I am not loyal to walls or cages.
I am not loyal to taunts or tweets.
I am not loyal to hatred, to Jew-baiting, to the gloating connivings of white supremacy.

I am a disloyal Jew.
I am not loyal to any foreign power.
Nor to abuse of power at home.
I am not loyal to a legacy of conquest, erasure and exploitation
I am not loyal to stories that tell me whom I should hate.

I am a loyal Jew.
I am loyal to the inconveniences of kindness.
I am loyal to the dream of justice.
I am loyal to this suffering Earth
And to all life.
I am not loyal to any founding fathers.
But I am loyal to the children who will come
And to the quality of world we leave them.
I am not loyal to what America has become.
But to what America could be.
I am loyal to Emma Lazarus. To huddled masses.
To freedom and welcome,
Holiness, hope and love.


Reb Irwin Keller lives in Sonoma County California and is a student member of Ohalah, the Association of Rabbis for Jewish Renewal. Learn more about his website here. 

Poem: Oath of Disloyalty Read More »

Tlaib And Omar: What Would JFK Do?

“The purpose of foreign policy is not to provide an outlet for our own sentiments of hope or indignation; it is to shape real events in a real world.”
-John F. Kennedy, Sept. 26, 1963

 

 

In September 1963, less than two months before his fateful trip to Dallas, President John F. Kennedy felt compelled to defend America’s continuing postwar commitment to NATO. Addressing the rising tide of skeptics who sought to return to the country’s pre-war isolationist stance, the president reminded Americans that foreign policy demands serious engagement with those with whom we disagree. “If we were to withdraw our assistance from all governments who are run differently than our own,” he explained, “we would relinquish half the world immediately to our adversary.”

Kennedy’s clear-eyed focus on achieving desired foreign policy objectives is in stark contrast to the carnival-like atmosphere surrounding last week’s aborted trip to Israel of Reps. (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn). As everyone now knows, Israel barred entry to the two congresswomen after being urged to do so by President Donald Trump. Both have declared support for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, and a controversial 2017 Israeli law entitles the state to deny entry to BDS supporters. At least three reasons have been cited in support of the decision:

 

1) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cited the lawmakers’ purported itinerary, which he said “reveals that the sole purpose of their visit is to harm Israel and increase incitement against it.”
2) The pair rejected an invitation to join a Democratic congressional delegation earlier this month with 41 other representatives, sponsored by an organization affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). That delegation met with both Israeli and Palestinian officials and activists, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
3) The organizer of Tlaib and Omar’s planned trip was a group called Miftah. The group supports BDS, has praised Palestinian suicide bombers, and previously published an anti-Semitic blood libel accusation in gruesome, defamatory detail.

 

No question about it — these concerns, and perhaps others, are justified. It is abundantly clear that Tlaib and Omar intended to meet solely with people who are critical of Israel, and sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle. They would likely admit that they intentionally skipped the AIPAC-sponsored event precisely because it included pro-Israel participants. And — there is simply no other word for it—the Miftah organization is reprehensible.

The question left to both Israel and the Trump administration, then, was clear: what to do about it? How best to blunt the impact of their intended action? Ignore it, and let them proceed with the trip? Or ban it, and give exponentially more attention to their goals, their mission, and their image of Israel — all while painting themselves as victims?

Stunningly, Israel chose the latter.

Netanyahu and Trump had obvious personal motivations for their coordinated action. Trump is attempting to raise the profile of Reps. Tlaib, Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as the faces of the Democratic Party heading into 2020. Trump is popular in Israel; with another Israeli election on the horizon, Netanyahu needs to placate the president.

But for American Jews who care about Israel? How could they possibly believe that, in the real world, support for this ban somehow helps the Jews? For decades, Israel and American leaders have hewed close to a carefully tended bipartisan policy of support for the Jewish state. Administrations come and go, Democrats and Republicans trade large swaths of power. AIPAC’s grand strategy since its inception has been to safeguard that bipartisan support because the only way to ensure consistent American support for Israel through the shifting American political winds is to stay above American political partisanship — particularly in Congress. This ban has seriously challenged that strategy, which is why AIPAC opposed it.

Supporting the ban of these congressional representatives — regardless of how reprehensible their views are — in no way serves to “shape real events in a real world.” Will it discourage others from believing as Tlaib and Omar do? Of course not. Will it stop or slow anti-Israel agitation? No. Does it somehow demonstrate Israel’s sovereign right to control its borders? Of course not — every country has that right. Does it stand for any principle whatsoever, other than the notion that the ideas that undergird the Zionist project are now so weak and worn that they can no longer stand up to the opposition of two American congressional critics? Nope.

Instead, they should have been given full access to their entire planned itinerary. Every minute of it. Israel wins if she is strong enough to allow them access to every place they intended to tour, and every person with whom they intended to meet. Freedom to share their perspective about how evil the Jewish state is, even as it grants them courtesies they would never receive in a place of overwhelming oppression. The BDS skirmish, at least at this level, is a war of symbolism, not substance. Barring access shows cowardice, and gives the other side unearned talking points.

The last thing that American Jews should hope for is any exacerbation of waning support for Israel within the Democratic Party. Bipartisan support for Israel should be at the strategic forefront of every person who loves Israel. Don’t get caught up in the petty election year interests of two politicians seeking to ensure their political survival. Stick with AIPAC, which has been around Washington long enough to know how to keep its eye on the strategic ball. American Jewish reaction to those who seek to harm the Jewish state should not serve to provide an outlet for our own sentiments of hope or indignation; they should seek to shape real events in a real world.


Stuart D. Tochner is a shareholder with Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart in Los Angeles.

Tlaib And Omar: What Would JFK Do? Read More »

Trump Defends ‘Disloyalty’ Remarks, Says Jews Who Vote Democrat Are ‘Disloyal’ to Israel

President Donald Trump doubled down on his “disloyalty” remarks on Aug. 21, telling reporters that he thought that Jews who vote for Democrats are “disloyal” to Israel.

A reporter asked Trump in the White House lawn if he thinks Democrat Jews aren’t loyal to Israel, Trump responded, “Oh I say so, yeah.” The reporter then asked Trump is that was an anti-Semitic sentiment, prompting Trump to reply, “It’s only anti-Semitic in your head.”

He added that Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) “are so bad for Israel. They are so bad for Jewish people. You take a look at the horrible anti-Semitic statements that they made, you take a look at what they want to do Israel, take a look at the fact that they want aid – all of the aid, almost $4 billion – all of the aid cut from Israel… the Democrats, they have to own it.”

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted, “.@POTUS made it clear he thinks Jews have a dual loyalty to Israel. This #antiSemitic trope has been used to persecute Jews for centuries & it’s unacceptable to promote it. He should apologize immediately.”

American Jewish Committee CEO David Harris similarly tweeted, “Dear @POTUS, Please stop. American Jews are [American] citizens, period. Why are you raising issues about loyalties? This is toxic & has a very dark history. Many of us care deeply about Israel’s well-being. But that’s a far cry from suggesting allegiance to another nation.”

Earlier in the day, Trump tweeted out a comment from conservative talk show host Wayne Allyn Root saying that “the Jewish people in Israel love [Trump] like’s the King of Israel.”

Simon Wiesenthal Center Founder and Dean Rabbi Marvin Hier and Associate Dean and Director of Global Social Action Agenda Rabbi Abraham Cooper said in an Aug. 21 statement, “We believe that since 1948 the overwhelming majority of American Jews, irrespective of party affiliation, unequivocally support the State of Israel. We also affirm that this bipartisan support is absolutely essential to the future well being and security of the Jewish State. To say otherwise, and depend only on one party, particularly in these turbulent times of increased hate and anti-Semitism, only weakens and divides the most important Jewish community in the Diaspora.”

Trump Defends ‘Disloyalty’ Remarks, Says Jews Who Vote Democrat Are ‘Disloyal’ to Israel Read More »

CA Man’s Poem on Trump’s ‘Disloyal Jew’ Comment Picks Up Following

On the morning of Aug. 21, Reb Irwin Keller woke up with poetry in his head.

“I grabbed my phone and started dictating. I then checked online to see what creative responses had emerged, and I didn’t see any,” Keller said to the Journal via email. “So I cleaned up a few lines and just posted it. It barely felt like it came from me; it felt like it came through me, including lines emerging right from my dreams.”

This poem was in direct reference to President Donald Trump saying that Jews who vote for the Democratic Party have “either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty” on Aug. 20.

“I felt a strong call to put words to my feelings about the president’s comment,” Keller said. “I know in some ways it is not a good use of time to respond to every affront that issues from him. But this one hit hard. It was an invitation for white nationalists to act on their hatred of Jews. It was a provocation to divide Jews from each other and from our natural allies in the US, which includes the Muslim community. And hearing a presidential invitation to Anti-Semitism, complete with the old trope of Jewish split loyalties was haunting. It chilled my heart.”

In a few short hours, his poem had picked up momentum, being shared throughout online Jewish communities all around the country.

“When it instantly started traveling the internet, I realized I was hitting a nerve, tapping into something Jews were feeling deeply. Something about being manipulated, used, and targeted. A lot of our Jewish justice work has been empathetic – that is, we are protecting the rights of others because it’s our duty and our privilege. But this was such a dirty thing, aimed right at us. I felt people waking up who hadn’t previously had words.”

Read his poem below:

I am a disloyal Jew.

I am not loyal to a political party.
Nor will I be loyal to dictators and mad kings.
I am not loyal to walls or cages.
I am not loyal to taunts or tweets.
I am not loyal to hatred, to Jew-baiting, to the gloating connivings of white supremacy.

I am a disloyal Jew.
I am not loyal to any foreign power.
Nor to abuse of power at home.
I am not loyal to a legacy of conquest, erasure and exploitation
I am not loyal to stories that tell me whom I should hate.

I am a loyal Jew.
I am loyal to the inconveniences of kindness.
I am loyal to the dream of justice.
I am loyal to this suffering Earth
And to all life.
I am not loyal to any founding fathers.
But I am loyal to the children who will come
And to the quality of world we leave them.
I am not loyal to what America has become.
But to what America could be.
I am loyal to Emma Lazarus. To huddled masses.
To freedom and welcome,
Holiness, hope and love.


Reb Irwin Keller lives in Sonoma County California and is a student member of Ohalah, the Association of Rabbis for Jewish Renewal. Learn more about his website here. 

CA Man’s Poem on Trump’s ‘Disloyal Jew’ Comment Picks Up Following Read More »